Nature of God and man

[Connie]

I am interested in the origins of the idea that man and God are completely different creatures, different species if you will. Any help would be appreciated.

[Soninme]

Hello Connie,

My reading of Gen 1:26 is that we are "made" and God is not.

God cannot sin and we/I seem to have no trouble. So for me the origin of it is Genesis 1.

Thanks

[rameumptom]

Connie,

It comes from the Hellenism of Judaism and Christianity. Aristotle and other Greek philosophers described God, as being one being of Spirit. God was pure, and we are not, therefore we are of a different substance than God, and can never be exactly like him, as we can never be of the same pure substance God is made of.

Early Christianity accepted an anthropomorphic God, with Christ as a subordinate God under the Father. The early apologist Origen was very clear about this. However, more and more Christians sought to use Greek philosophy to convert the world to Christ. They determined that there is only one God, that he is a Spirit, that he is the Unmoved Mover, etc., all Aristotelian concepts. The Nicene Council was convened in 325 AD to determine just what God was - demonstrating clearly that the concept of the Trinity was not a settled idea from the days of the apostles and Christ. As I noted, those writings are very anthropomorphic (such as Stephen's stoning, or Christ on the cross asking God why he forsook Jesus, etc).

Even after the Nicene Council, it wasn't settled. For another century, the concept of separate Gods almost won out. The key leader for the Trinity, Athanasius was actually exiled for a time.

SonInMe notes a major difference in belief that has to do with ex nihilo creation (creation from nothing). This is also an Aristotelian concept. Yet, the best readings of the Bible show that the world was formed from previous material, and that there was a divine council of beings. Kerry Shirts made an interesting statement recently: They killed Joseph Smith for these teachings, yet today many universities give out advanced degrees for theses on such concepts!

[madeleine1]

As already stated Genesis, and then also Psalm 148.

It is also obvious, by reason, we do not have the attributes of God. We are not All Powereful, infinite and eternal. We are created. God begets God, God creates man, man begets man. God did not beget man. The only begotten of God is Jesus Christ. True God from True God.

God is God, and the belief that man is a god is the innovation.

Edited January 1, 2012 by madeleine1

[madeleine1]

Connie,

It comes from the Hellenism of Judaism and Christianity. Aristotle and other Greek philosophers described God, as being one being of Spirit. God was pure, and we are not, therefore we are of a different substance than God, and can never be exactly like him, as we can never be of the same pure substance God is made of.

Early Christianity accepted an anthropomorphic God, with Christ as a subordinate God under the Father. The early apologist Origen was very clear about this. However, more and more Christians sought to use Greek philosophy to convert the world to Christ. They determined that there is only one God, that he is a Spirit, that he is the Unmoved Mover, etc., all Aristotelian concepts. The Nicene Council was convened in 325 AD to determine just what God was - demonstrating clearly that the concept of the Trinity was not a settled idea from the days of the apostles and Christ. As I noted, those writings are very anthropomorphic (such as Stephen's stoning, or Christ on the cross asking God why he forsook Jesus, etc).

Even after the Nicene Council, it wasn't settled. For another century, the concept of separate Gods almost won out. The key leader for the Trinity, Athanasius was actually exiled for a time.

SonInMe notes a major difference in belief that has to do with ex nihilo creation (creation from nothing). This is also an Aristotelian concept. Yet, the best readings of the Bible show that the world was formed from previous material, and that there was a divine council of beings. Kerry Shirts made an interesting statement recently: They killed Joseph Smith for these teachings, yet today many universities give out advanced degrees for theses on such concepts!

Yet, Origen was Catholic, believing and speaking of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. And so, Origen is not speaking of the Mormon concept of deity, but of the Carholic, which is, we become by grace what we are not by nature. This being prefigured in the Eucharist.

Pagan converts to Christianity held anthropomorphic beliefs, some for a long time after their conversin to Christ. To make God in the image of oneself is considered a form of idolatry, and always has been.

Edited January 1, 2012 by madeleine1

[Vort]

To make God in the image of oneself is considered a form of idolatry, and always has been.

So God is an idolater?

[madeleine1]

What? That question doesn't make sense. God is God. I'm kind of seeing an idea here that Mormons think they are gods. You are not.

[Vort]

What? That question doesn't make sense. God is God. I'm kind of seeing an idea here that Mormons think they are gods. You are not.

Your claim was:

To make God in the image of oneself is considered a form of idolatry, and always has been.

Yet God made himself in the image of human beings, as he made human beings in his own image.

[JudoMinja]

Madeline, Vort was merely pointing out a flaw in your statement.

Since scriptures tell us that God made man in his image, we can logically infer that God is in our image. Think of a mirror.. we are a reflection of God, and God is a reflection of us. Your statement that making God in our image is a form of idolatry, does make it sound like God fits the definition of an idolater, since he made us in His image.

And to be precise, we do not believe that we are gods. We believe that we are God's children and thus have the potential to become like God, possibly "gods", but that possibility is speculation and not grounded in factual doctrine. Many members do believe this to be the case- that we will be given our own worlds to create and govern and populate with our own spirit children, but because there has never been any clarification as to what exactly it means to be able to become like God, other possibilities are out there...

If God is a different "species" from us, so to speak, then it is perfectly understandable why this would seem like such an outrageous possibility, but when you consider that we (LDS) believe we (humanity) are his spirit children in a very literal sense, then this speculation makes more sense.

[applepansy]

What? That question doesn't make sense. God is God. I'm kind of seeing an idea here that Mormons think they are gods. You are not.

Mormons do not think they are gods.

[rameumptom]

Madeleine,

We are not gods. But we are children of God, and he has promised to make the righteous into gods under his reign. God made us in His image. If that is the case, then God looks like humans do. Otherwise, we have to twist and turn things on their heads in the scriptures. It is one thing to say one or two verses are metaphor. It is another thing to take dozens of references of God being anthropomorphic, and forcing an alliteration on them.

I have shared lots of Biblical and ancient evidence supporting the LDS belief that we are literally God's spirit children, that God is a glorified man, and that we can grow up to be like him (even as the acorn becomes the oak, or a fetus becomes a human).

I appreciate your opinions, but they are not based upon any evidence so far. You have stated that our belief is strange, yet I've shown it to be ancient. Therefore, you would have considered the ancient beliefs of the Jews and Christians "weird" as well, as many of those beliefs are very different than the teachings of traditional Christianity which developed over the past 1500 years or so.

[Soninme]

In Gen 1:26 God says man was made in "Our image, after Our likeness" NOT just the image of the Father but also made in the image of the Son and Holy Spirit, and even in LDS teaching they did not have bodies of flesh and bone, so whatever is meant by image and likeness cannot be a physical body.

[rameumptom]

SonInMe,

Your response just begs the question. If God made us in His (their) image, and we are made with face, eyes, feet, hands, etc., then it makes sense that whether God has a physical body or is just a Spirit, God has a face, body, eyes, feet, hands, etc., as well.

In the Book of Ether, the Lord appeared to the Brother of Jared, who saw him as a man. Nephi saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a man, even though Nephi knew he was a spirit. So, it is clear in LDS belief that the Spirit looks a lot like we do. D&C tells us that spirit is made of matter, but it is purer and finer, so we cannot see it with our physical eyes. IOW, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost all have the appearance of man, even though they may not have a body now, or not have had one in the past. Remember, Moses spoke with God "face to face", and the 70 elders saw God's whole body. Isaiah and Stephen saw God sitting on His throne. These are all anthropomorphic experiences.

[Soninme]

Your response just begs the question. If God made us in His (their) image, and we are made with face, eyes, feet, hands, etc., then it makes sense that whether God has a physical body or is just a Spirit, God has a face, body, eyes, feet, hands, etc., as well.

Ram

If we continue that line of thinking then man is omniiscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. All those are qualities of God whos image we are made in.

Also God then is capable of sin

That God can appear to man in the form of a man is also in the Bible. Also the "Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him" (Luke 3:22)

Yet if God "has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s" (D&C 130:22) - and ours is made in His image and likeness - then how is He omnipresent? How could He fill heaven and earth?

Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see Him?" declares the LORD. "Do not I fill heaven and earth?" declares the LORD.(Jer.23:24)

2 Chronicles 2:6 But who is able to build Him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain Him? who am I then, that I should build Him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before Him?

As for God's throne, if I may, I am copying a previous answer I gave on this subject.

Yes God has a throne.

Solomon sat on it.

1 Chronicles 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.

His throne is in the temple forever.

Ezekiel 43:6-7 Then I heard Him speaking to me from the temple, while a man stood beside me. And He said to me, “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever.

Does the Bible teach a physical chair/throne?

Isaiah 66:1 and Acts 7:49 Thus says the LORD:“ Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool.

Matthew 5:34-35 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool;

What is the throne made of?

Ps. 89:14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; Mercy and truth go before Your face.

Dan 7:9 “ I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire;

Surrounding the Throne are 24 other thrones.

Also around the throne;

Isaiah 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.

The train of His robe.

2 Chronicles 18:18 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right hand and His left.

All the host of heaven - standing on both of His hands

Rev 4:3 John, to the seven churches which are in Asia:Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne,.

The seven Spirits.

Rev 4:5 And He who sat there was like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald.

A rainbow that looked like an emerald.

Rev 5:6 Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back.

A sea of glass and four living creatures full of eyes.

Rev 5:11 Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands.

Rev 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,.

Angels, creatures, elders and people in robes with palm branches too numerous to count.

Rev 22:1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Also a river.

God’s throne symbolizes power, dominion and rule.

Psalm 45:6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

Jeremiah 3:17 “At that time Jerusalem shall be called The Throne of the LORD,

Jeremiah 14:21 Do not abhor us, for Your name’s sake; Do not disgrace the throne of Your glory. Remember, do not break Your covenant with us.

Jeremiah 49:38 I will set My throne in Elam, And will destroy from there the king and the princes,’ says the LORD.

Luke 1:32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.

Thrones symbolize evil dominion also.

Psalm 94:20 Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, Have fellowship with You?

Revelation 2:13 “I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is.

Revelation 16:10 Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom became full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues because of the pain.

Thanks, I know this was long and I hate long posts.

[madeleine1]

Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. (Romans 1:20-23)

I'm not trying to insult, but this is what I see in Mormon thought.

I found this article, written by a Lutheran pastor. I think it sums up well the differences I am seeing. Christianity is based on the theology of the Cross, Mormonism is based on the theology of Glory.

The Theology of the Cross: Cross-Shaped Theology by Todd Wilken

The foundational beliefs between Mormonism and Christianity are beyond divergent and I can't see where there is any area of agreement. I don't see any reason to stick around just to hit this fact over and over again.

Peace.

[JudoMinja]

I would be sorry to see you go, Madeline. Your posts have helped me understand much of the Catholic viewpoint, and I enjoy interactions with people of other faiths. We certainly have our differences, but the key to a civil discourse is the ability to accept those differences in the other and move on. We will not agree on everything, but many rehashings of our different views allows us to express ourselves in different ways and come to, at least, a better understanding. I much enjoyed this with StephenVH when he was posting here, and though I haven't responded to many of your posts have found them enlightening.

[Guest]

Ram

If we continue that line of thinking then man is omniiscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. All those are qualities of God whos image we are made in.

Also God then is capable of sin

Those are qualities of a god... we are not there yet (that is, if we ever make it there as weak as we are who cannot even have a peaceful exchange of ideas on the internet).

[rameumptom]

SonInMe,

An acorn does not have leaves, bark, or a trunk. Yet it has in its DNA all that is necessary to someday have those qualities. We are not glorified resurrected beings yet. But someday we may be, and when we are, we will gain more qualities that God currently has.

Therefore, your continued argument still "does not follow" (a Non-Sequitur). That is a logical fallacy, by the way. You can read up on them here: Top 20 Logical Fallacies - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

[rameumptom]

Madeleine,

I also agree with what Paul wrote in Romans. We do not see God as a mortal being, but as an exalted man. Paul was writing to the Romans, the center of a variety of pagan religions, wherein Caesar and other mortals were considered gods in the flesh. Note he also states bird, animals, snakes, etc. Why? Because these were things worshiped by Romans and Egyptians (some Egyptian concepts and god worship were strong in Rome due to Julius Caesar and Cleopatra).

We must be careful on how we interpret such scriptures. For example, Christ was a mortal man at one point, yet he is still the God which Paul preached. The difference is, not worshiping the image of Jesus, even in his mortal state, but in his exalted state.

Again, we see the exalted God as making us in his image. We were not made in Caesar's image, nor do we worship him, as he was just a mortal, and not a real god. We do not place icons/images of Caesar or any other mortals around for others to worship.

This same scripture in Romans could be used by some to condemn Catholicism for its use of iconography with saints and the Virgin, after all they are images of mortals. I do not, because I do not see Catholics worshiping them anymore than Mormons worship Joseph Smith or Thomas S. Monson. We don't, yet there is honor given to holy people who have done great works in life.

[Connie]

I didn't really create this thread as place to discuss the differences between LDS and non-LDS. I would respectfully ask everyone to please stay on topic. Thanks.

I understand that non-LDS read the Bible differently. I understand they believe this particular issue to be Biblical. But the fact is, the Bible does not explicitly state such a belief. No more than it explicitly states the LDS belief. It's all in the interpretation. So there are some underlying assumptions made on what certain words mean, etc.. These assumptions and word definitions come from the creeds. I accept that. But then where did the writers of the creeds get them. By inspiration from God? From Greek philosophy as Ram suggested... was Aristotle inspired by God and the writers of the creeds accepted and recognized that? Or was it some other way? This is my question.

[Shelly200]

I understand that non-LDS read the Bible differently. I understand they believe this particular issue to be Biblical. But the fact is, the Bible does not explicitly state such a belief. No more than it explicitly states the LDS belief. It's all in the interpretation. So there are some underlying assumptions made on what certain words mean, etc.. These assumptions and word definitions come from the creeds. I accept that. But then where did the writers of the creeds get them. By inspiration from God? From Greek philosophy as Ram suggested... was Aristotle inspired by God and the writers of the creeds accepted and recognized that? Or was it some other way? This is my question.

From the Catholic perspective (which is the Protestant perspective too, since we share this common history... we were all Catholics in the beginning): the creeds were formulated during the many ecumenical councils of the first few centuries of the Church. Since the Church was founded by Christ and Christ sent the Holy Spirit to the members of the Church on Pentacost, then the Church has a special Authority to approve and disapprove (if you will) matters of doctrine. In cases in which there were questions concerning a piece of dogma-such as the divinity and/or humanity of Christ- a council was convened to promote the Truth and squash the heresy.

There were many heresies during the early Church that needed to be addressed. Councils were convened, and creeds eventually formed so that all members would have the fullness of Truth, stamped and approved by Christ's Church. So there would be no question as to which ideas were Christ-given.

It is true that some ideas from the Greek philosophers are similar to doctrines in the creeds. But the council members - bishops and leaders of the Church - didn't sit down with the writings of Aristotle and then build a creed. They used sacred Tradition - knowledge passed down from Christ, to the Apostles, to the bishops and members throughout the years, since there was no Bible bound yet - and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to determine which doctrines were Truth and which were heresy. Everything in the creeds is supported in the Bible, yet creeds were being formulated before the Bible was compiled completely. It was through, therefore, Tradition passed down from Christ, the writings the Church already had, and the guidance of the Spirit that formulated the creeds.

This is a very basic explanation of the beginning of the creeds. I'm interested to hear others' take on their origin.

[rameumptom]

Shelly,

That's a nice try at history, but it isn't quite as cut and dried as you make it. Several early Church leaders actually quoted Greek philosophers in trying to convert Gentiles to Christianity. This, however, went exactly opposite the teachings of Christ and his apostles.

That today many Catholics and Protestants believe that the councils were directed by the Holy Spirit into defining doctrines, is not as cut and dried, either. Constantine, who convened the Nicaea Council, was not a Christian, not baptized, etc. until near his death He made the final decision as to which form God would take at Nicaea. He was, btw, very Hellenistic in his beliefs. It became not so much as to what the council decided by the Spirit, but rather which bishops Constantine chose to back. History shows that even after this council, the form of God was not totally decided. For almost another century, Arianism almost overcame Athanasian belief in a Trinity.

Second, the gifts of the Spirit were essentially rejected by the proto-orthodox Church around the same time frame. They struggled to keep extraneous Christian writings from becoming accepted and canonized by the various sects. So, they made their own list of approved Bible writings and stated nothing else could be added; that revelation was finished. The Shepherd of Hermas is an example of an early revelatory book that was rejected by St Jerome in forming his Bible, because the Shepherd was not one of the apostles. Still, many early Christians embraced the teachings therein. So, with a rejection of continuing revelation, we cannot say that the convened councils could bring about new doctrine/dogma regarding things such as the form of God, how Christ could be both Spirit and resurrected flesh (duality), and even the Infallibility of the Pope (which does not have any Biblical evidence whatsoever for it).

So, here we have St Jerome and others claiming that only apostolic (original 12) statements have any spiritual authority. Otherwise, one must rely on the Bible alone for authority. This has been recently re-enforced by the current Pope, who has approved abandoning the concept of Limbo, because there is no Biblical evidence for it. IOW, the Catholic Church is now trying to figure out again whether little babies without baptism will be saved or burn in hell (St Augustine said they would). This was decided in a council, yet is now overturned due to the reality that it does not carry the ancient apostolic authority, nor any new revelation.

So, when we really get into the history, it is not as neat and tidy as one would hope for.

And this is one reason why I strongly believe in the need for modern prophets and apostles, who can receive new revelation regarding key issues, such as whether Athanasius or Arius were right, or whether both were wrong; or what will happen to little children who die without baptism.

[Guest]

From the Catholic perspective (which is the Protestant perspective too, since we share this common history... we were all Catholics in the beginning): the creeds were formulated during the many ecumenical councils of the first few centuries of the Church. Since the Church was founded by Christ and Christ sent the Holy Spirit to the members of the Church on Pentacost, then the Church has a special Authority to approve and disapprove (if you will) matters of doctrine. In cases in which there were questions concerning a piece of dogma-such as the divinity and/or humanity of Christ- a council was convened to promote the Truth and squash the heresy.

There were many heresies during the early Church that needed to be addressed. Councils were convened, and creeds eventually formed so that all members would have the fullness of Truth, stamped and approved by Christ's Church. So there would be no question as to which ideas were Christ-given.

It is true that some ideas from the Greek philosophers are similar to doctrines in the creeds. But the council members - bishops and leaders of the Church - didn't sit down with the writings of Aristotle and then build a creed. They used sacred Tradition - knowledge passed down from Christ, to the Apostles, to the bishops and members throughout the years, since there was no Bible bound yet - and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to determine which doctrines were Truth and which were heresy. Everything in the creeds is supported in the Bible, yet creeds were being formulated before the Bible was compiled completely. It was through, therefore, Tradition passed down from Christ, the writings the Church already had, and the guidance of the Spirit that formulated the creeds.

This is a very basic explanation of the beginning of the creeds. I'm interested to hear others' take on their origin.

Thanks, Shelly! This is a great post.

As far as the origins of the LDS view of the nature of God is concerned - it's pretty straightforward. Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son - two personages, 2 exalted beings looking just like we are (eyes, nose, mouth, hands, feet, etc. etc.).

[Connie]

Thanks Shelly. That's just what i'm looking for. I appreciate Ram pointing out certain historical facts, but i think what i mainly want to know is how non-LDS perceive the creeds they use to interpret scripture, what they believe about the origins of them and why they are the "only right way" that scripture should be interpreted.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Connie

[Shelly200]

So, here we have St Jerome and others claiming that only apostolic (original 12) statements have any spiritual authority. Otherwise, one must rely on the Bible alone for authority. This has been recently re-enforced by the current Pope, who has approved abandoning the concept of Limbo, because there is no Biblical evidence for it. IOW, the Catholic Church is now trying to figure out again whether little babies without baptism will be saved or burn in hell (St Augustine said they would). This was decided in a council, yet is now overturned due to the reality that it does not carry the ancient apostolic authority, nor any new revelation..

And this is one reason why I strongly believe in the need for modern prophets and apostles, who can receive new revelation regarding key issues, such as whether Athanasius or Arius were right, or whether both were wrong; or what will happen to little children who die without baptism.

I will not get into every argument you presented, but I appreciate your response.

What I will say is on two points: the first is St. Jerome. From what I have been told about him, while he was translating the Bible into the Vulgate he had issue with some books that he didn't want included in the canon. (I believe it was St. Jerome who coined the word "apocrypha" for the deuterocanonical books.) In the end, however, he bowed to the dictates of the Church, recognizing that they, and not he, had the Authority to determine which books and writings were to be included and which weren't.

Also- while papal infallibility itself is not mentioned in Scripture ... I mean, the word "pope" isn't found in Scripture either... the ideas surrounding the doctrine do have a basis in the Bible. Once again, the Bible can be interpreted many ways; I can give verses that the RCC uses to support papal infallibility and you can disagree with them. So I'll refrain from doing so. However, the point is that the RCC places a great importance on Scripture, and the Church would not have a doctrine that conflicts with the Bible or Christ's words; but she (the Church) also places great importance on Tradition and the Magisterium (which is one thing that is common between the LDS and the RCC- the importance of an Authoritative priesthood), so not every doctrine she teaches must be explicitly stated verbatum in the Bible in order to be True. (Though they won't admit it, Protestants do this too... sola scriptura and sola fide are not stated in the Bible either.)

Lastly, concerning unbaptized: the Catechism states: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God...the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved...allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism." CCC 1261 And: "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." CCC 1260 So, while we believe that Baptism is necessary and was commanded by Christ, we also believe in God's mercy; for those without the opportunity to be baptized, they can still be saved. The LDS believe something similar, however believing that a person must be baptized by proxy to receive its benefits after death. The RCC does not go that distance; they simply trust God's mercy.